I completely agree. My entire point is that if you're going to let in guys who have admittedly used amphetamines, you should let in guys who used steroids too. Both were not against the rules at the time so it seems dumb to just gloss over one and not the other. Conversely, if you're not going to let in guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc, you better kick out guys like Mays and Aaron for using performance enhancers too.

The extent to which amphetamines enhance performance compared to extent that steroids help is like comparing the destructive capabilities of a squirt gun compared to an AK-47. Amphetamines can help your focus and keep you alert but they don't make you stronger or improve your reflexes.

What's the difference to the people who don't want cheaters in the Hall of Fame? Sooner or later people are going to have to come to terms with it. It became part of the competition. Which is probably the only realistic way to look at it now.

What's the difference to the people who don't want cheaters in the Hall of Fame? Sooner or later people are going to have to come to terms with it. It became part of the competition. Which is probably the only realistic way to look at it now.

I think thats the best way to look at it. The players who were clean get a raw deal during that whole era but it's almost impossible to really know who was clean. I look at it this way, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds could of arguably been the best pitcher and hitter of all time. With the steroids both of them get docked on alltime lists and to me thats punishment enough. You really can't blame these players 100 percent when MLB knew all this was going on and took a blind eye to make more money after the strike. Bud Selig will no doubt make the Hall of Fame but if a whole generation of players under his watch aren't allowed in then he has no business making it.

Players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were making the hof even without the roids. Players like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro are the ones voters need to look at differently. There is no way Curt Schilling should make the hof before Clemens or Craig Biggio over Bonds.

I have no idea how this years voting will end up but with the way McGwire and Bagwell have fared then Bonds and Clemens are going to be left out for awhile. I keep hearing how Biggio and Piazza are making it but theres no way in hell do I believe Piazza was clean and Biggio was best friends with Bagwell so I find it very hard to believe he never used either. Now I know there isn't proof on these guys but with anyone from that era I'd rather see proof that they didn't use.

With this era you can't go by who you may think didn't use because some will slip through the cracks and when that happens then it will be a shame that Bonds and Clemens are left out.

What's the difference to the people who don't want cheaters in the Hall of Fame? Sooner or later people are going to have to come to terms with it. It became part of the competition. Which is probably the only realistic way to look at it now.

The difference is in that there was no rule against any drugs without a prescription until 1991 which was made in regards to the cocaine scandals of the 1980s. Guys who used steroids broke that rule, guys who used amphetamines (like Aaron and Mays) did not. There is also the question of how much a drug enhanced one's performance. The fact of the matter is anabolic steroids is a far greater enhancer than amphetamines. Amphetamines is really akin to drinking a couple of pots of coffee, it makes you more alert and mentally sharper but does not improve your physical performance. Steroids does.

I think thats the best way to look at it. The players who were clean get a raw deal during that whole era but it's almost impossible to really know who was clean. I look at it this way, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds could of arguably been the best pitcher and hitter of all time. With the steroids both of them get docked on alltime lists and to me thats punishment enough. You really can't blame these players 100 percent when MLB knew all this was going on and took a blind eye to make more money after the strike. Bud Selig will no doubt make the Hall of Fame but if a whole generation of players under his watch aren't allowed in then he has no business making it.

Players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were making the hof even without the roids. Players like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro are the ones voters need to look at differently. There is no way Curt Schilling should make the hof before Clemens or Craig Biggio over Bonds.

I have no idea how this years voting will end up but with the way McGwire and Bagwell have fared then Bonds and Clemens are going to be left out for awhile. I keep hearing how Biggio and Piazza are making it but theres no way in hell do I believe Piazza was clean and Biggio was best friends with Bagwell so I find it very hard to believe he never used either. Now I know there isn't proof on these guys but with anyone from that era I'd rather see proof that they didn't use.

With this era you can't go by who you may think didn't use because some will slip through the cracks and when that happens then it will be a shame that Bonds and Clemens are left out.

I don't even really care about the Hall of Fame. It's just how PEDs are viewed is what amuses me. It's kinda ridiculous. They've become part of the competition now. Things have changed, nothing stays static. Fans may not like it, but that's really of no difference. They paid to see those home runs. They paid to see Ripken break Gehrig's record. They wanted to see those things happen, they got it. Thanks in part to PEDs. People are fooling themselves if they believe players of eras before PEDs really came into existence wouldn't be using them. Of course they would.

Is it an ugly truth? Maybe. But they're professional athletes, it's a choice that comes with the job, along with multitudes of other choices that may or may not increase their chances of staying competitive.

I really don't get this. Your obviously deducting Bonds and Clemens but why even vote for them at all.

I feel Piazza used and i'm guessing thats why he's last on your list but Biggio shouldn't get a pass either. Biggio went from hitting 3 or 4 homeruns a year to hitting 20-25 a year. The fact that he played with one of the biggest steroid teams in baseball really makes me wonder about him.

Alan Trammell deserves support and I hope he gets in someday but he's not the second most deserving on your list.

If your gonna vote for these guys then Bonds is a easy number one. If your deducting for steroids then take off everyone except Raines and Trammell.

I hate the era but I do feel at least 75 percent of players used and to put some guys in like Biggio or Piazza is ridiculous. Just because they didn't hit 60 homeruns doesn't mean they weren't using. Lenny Dykstra was a admitted user and steroids turned him into a guy who went from single digit homeruns to 15-20 homeruns. You don't have to hit 60 homeruns to be a steroid user.

Again, Biggio played in the Astrodome half his career, never bulked up and guys usually increase power as they get more experienced. There's zero evidence both via his body size or numbers that he used PED's.

Also, the supposed biggest steroid teams in baseball are San Francisco and Oakland, due to BALCO. The only confirmed juicers Biggio played with are Caminiti and Finley (who started using in SF, not Houston) at the beginning of his career, and doofus Clemens and his shoot-up pal Pettitte at the end.

While some like to assume guilt by association, I firmly believe that Biggio never juiced. And while there is more supposed proof by body size, I think Bagwell didn't either.

I don't even really care about the Hall of Fame. It's just how PEDs are viewed is what amuses me. It's kinda ridiculous. They've become part of the competition now. Things have changed, nothing stays static. Fans may not like it, but that's really of no difference. They paid to see those home runs. They paid to see Ripken break Gehrig's record. They wanted to see those things happen, they got it. Thanks in part to PEDs. People are fooling themselves if they believe players of eras before PEDs really came into existence wouldn't be using them. Of course they would.

Is it an ugly truth? Maybe. But they're professional athletes, it's a choice that comes with the job, along with multitudes of other choices that may or may not increase their chances of staying competitive.

Here's the line that Barry Bonds put up in 1998, allegedly his last clean year: .303/.438/.609, 37 homers, 28 steals, 130 walks, 122 RBI. Yet all the fans and writers cared about was McGwire and Sosa, two guys who were half the players that Bonds was. McGwire didn't even hide his Andro use - check out this article from August 1998 on the subject. And if you scroll down to the bottom of the article, and see the related stories links, there's a link for a poll which shows that "fans want to see someone smash Maris' mark." We didn't care at all about steroids back then.

IMO, Barry Bonds' decision to start using made complete sense given the circumstances. I also think that if this issue had existed during any previous era, you'd have many of the players jumping on board.

I'm probably going to get flamed for the simplicity of my opinion, but to me it comes down to the fact that these guys cheated. They used illegal substances to boost their game, and that's cheating, forgiving circumstances or not. It's totally irrelevant what Aaron or Mays or Ruth MIGHT have done given the opportunity to do it. The guys that cheated should not be allowed in, plain and simple.

I'm probably going to get flamed for the simplicity of my opinion, but to me it comes down to the fact that these guys cheated. They used illegal substances to boost their game, and that's cheating, forgiving circumstances or not. It's totally irrelevant what Aaron or Mays or Ruth MIGHT have done given the opportunity to do it. The guys that cheated should not be allowed in, plain and simple.

We fans and the media and MLB turned a blind eye in the late 90s/early 2000s, so shouldn't we have to suffer the consequences of a "tainted" HOF? We created this problem; the players who (allegedly) used were just giving us what we asked for.

I am betting that the HOF voters will differentiate the wild west era from the testing era. Manny Ramirez, for example, won't get in while Bonds, Clemens and maybe even Palmeiro will eventually get in after a number of years of being punished.

We fans and the media and MLB turned a blind eye in the late 90s/early 2000s, so shouldn't we have to suffer the consequences of a "tainted" HOF? We created this problem; the players who (allegedly) used were just giving us what we asked for.

I am betting that the HOF voters will differentiate the wild west era from the testing era. Manny Ramirez, for example, won't get in while Bonds, Clemens and maybe even Palmeiro will eventually get in after a number of years of being punished.

Why should a player who cheated, a player who broke the law to gain an advantage not have that count against him when it comes to Hall of Fame consideration?

Being inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't like earning a promotion through your productivity on the job. The Hall of Fame is a place where the players that define what is great about baseball are celebrated, not where you go if you hit 500 home runs.

If you tell a grand jury you took money from gamblers who paid players to throw baseball games, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame when one is created to celebrate baseball. If you bet on major league baseball while managing major league baseball, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame. If there is evidence that you enhanced your performance with illegal and banned substances, putting other players you are competing with in a position where they may have to consider using illegal and banned substances, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Whether nobody cared about McGwire or Sosa when they were chasing Maris is irrelevant. By the ends of their careers most fans cared, and by the time Bonds was chasing Aaron, even Congress cared about performance enhancing drugs. There is no need for a special wing in the Hall of Fame. There is no reason for Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens et.al. -- you can even throw in Rose -- to be in the Hall of Fame because actions that they are remembered for are the antithesis of Hall of Fame worthy.

Again, Biggio played in the Astrodome half his career, never bulked up and guys usually increase power as they get more experienced. There's zero evidence both via his body size or numbers that he used PED's.

Also, the supposed biggest steroid teams in baseball are San Francisco and Oakland, due to BALCO. The only confirmed juicers Biggio played with are Caminiti and Finley (who started using in SF, not Houston) at the beginning of his career, and doofus Clemens and his shoot-up pal Pettitte at the end.

While some like to assume guilt by association, I firmly believe that Biggio never juiced. And while there is more supposed proof by body size, I think Bagwell didn't either.

The man got 3000 hits, he belongs in the Hall.

I think what bothers me is how I keep reading other message boards and everyone is praising Biggio and saying how Biggio and Bagwell need to go in together to show the steroid users that the hall is for clean players only. I just find it hard to believe that Biggio and Bagwell were both clean their entire careers.

In 1992 Pete Incavilgia played for the Astros and from what i've heard he popularized roids in the Astros clubhouse, just like he did for the 1993 Phillies.

Texas in the late 80's and early 90's was the steroid capital. Balco didn't come along until later on and I doubt Biggio was using masking agents. I think alot of people are confusing Biggio with using during Bonds Balco years. I think Biggio was using during Bonds clean years and he looks like the poster child for being clean in the roided up Bonds years.

Why should a player who cheated, a player who broke the law to gain an advantage not have that count against him when it comes to Hall of Fame consideration?

Being inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't like earning a promotion through your productivity on the job. The Hall of Fame is a place where the players that define what is great about baseball are celebrated, not where you go if you hit 500 home runs.

.

That's a delusion. The title of this thread is a joke. There are already liars, cheaters, scumbags, racists, etc, in the Hall of Fame. Just one more reason why I don't take any of this argument against the latest "crop" seriously. It's completely hypocritical. Your precious Hall of Fame has been tainted for generations.

That's a delusion. The title of this thread is a joke. There are already liars, cheaters, scumbags, racists, etc, in the Hall of Fame. Just one more reason why I don't take any of this argument against the latest "crop" seriously. It's completely hypocritical. Your precious Hall of Fame has been tainted for generations.

Why should a player who cheated, a player who broke the law to gain an advantage not have that count against him when it comes to Hall of Fame consideration?

Being inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't like earning a promotion through your productivity on the job. The Hall of Fame is a place where the players that define what is great about baseball are celebrated, not where you go if you hit 500 home runs.

If you tell a grand jury you took money from gamblers who paid players to throw baseball games, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame when one is created to celebrate baseball. If you bet on major league baseball while managing major league baseball, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame. If there is evidence that you enhanced your performance with illegal and banned substances, putting other players you are competing with in a position where they may have to consider using illegal and banned substances, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame.

Whether nobody cared about McGwire or Sosa when they were chasing Maris is irrelevant. By the ends of their careers most fans cared, and by the time Bonds was chasing Aaron, even Congress cared about performance enhancing drugs. There is no need for a special wing in the Hall of Fame. There is no reason for Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens et.al. -- you can even throw in Rose -- to be in the Hall of Fame because actions that they are remembered for are the antithesis of Hall of Fame worthy.

Firstly how does anyone even decide who was clean and who wasn't in the pre-testing era? Even Barry's case hasn't been proven without a reason of a doubt or he'd have been convicted of straight-up perjury, and not obstruction of justice for giving vague, rambling answers. Then what happens when the "clean" guys get in and then 5 years later write tell-all books about their doping regimen?

It's hypocritical to encourage this behavior for a decade and then when the hangover comes, to punish the players who were doing exactly what the fans, the media, the owners and the commissioner wanted. Again, Mark McGwire in 1998 had a bottle of Andro, an anabolic steroid, in his locker and admitted to using it for over a year. Nobody cared because it was all about the homerun chase saving baseball. That reaction is what caused a lot of players to start using, and now many of the same baseball writers and fans who ate it up back then are the first to grab pitchforks now.